Kingman Crossing controversial; Council approves amendment

Nicholas Wilbur

Kingman Daily Miner

KINGMAN - Throughout the nearly two-hour discussion, 16 residents spoke their minds on the request to amend the city's zoning map and pave the way for a shopping center and traffic interchange off Interstate 40.

In the end, with a round of applause echoing through the county administration building, City Council pulled together the required two-thirds majority to approve an amendment in a 5-2 vote.

The city watchdog group Residents Against Irresponsible Development failed to convince the mayor and full Council to put this off for a year, when the details about traffic impacts to nearby residential neighborhoods, realities of the proposed incentive agreements are clear, and when the state land abutting the city's acreage is sold.

The group's preference wasn't granted, but RAID is planning a referendum that could, if enough signatures are gathered, push finalization of this amendment back six months to November, when all residents would be able to vote on the issue.

Not all of the questions were answered about the amendment for the future Kingman Crossing interchange and commercial district.

One local resident pointed out that if the city weren't the applicant requesting the amendment, the Council would have denied the request, as it did not meet the city's own requirements.

But Mayor Les Byram and four Councilmen who voted in favor of the amendment stood behind the idea that Kingman Crossing would relieve traffic on Stockton Hill Road, provide much-needed shopping options within the city as well as increase sales tax revenues that provide essential city services like police and fire protection.

The amendment is just the first step, and one that keeps options open for the city, the mayor said. While many questions remained unanswered, which was the reason Council members Kerry Deering and Janet Watson said they voted against the amendment, the standing-room-only crowd was assured that all aspects will be addressed before the land is actually rezoned or sold.

Representatives from RAID and the local Realtors' association, who filled the county administration building meeting room, gave their differing opinions on the issue during the public hearing.

RAID founder Mike Bihuniak stated that the mayor has continued to say that the city is not in the position to provide sales tax revenues in return for construction of the interchange, yet the company hired to handle the Kingman Crossing project, Stone & Youngberg Capital Group, continues to recommend that incentives be provided.

A sales tax incentive for the developer on the north side of I-40, opposite the city land, has entered into sales tax reimbursement contracts with several cities in Arizona and California. Because the city of Kingman uses sales tax to pay for all city services, often labeled “the lifeblood of Kingman,” officials have been reluctant to enter into such an agreement, despite the S&Y's recommendations.

“Two things have to happen,” Byram said. One is that Kingman residents will have to vote if or when the city decides to sell its land. “The other thing, it has to be a financially good deal for the city of Kingman. The sharing of the sales tax is a great, great problem for me,” Byram said, echoing previous statements.

“This is the next step in giving us the option to do whatever the Council thinks is in the best interest, either not going forward or going forward. If we don't do this, nothing will be done for a year,” he said.

Council members who voted in favor of the amendment agreed that this isn't setting anything in stone but rather is keeping options open for the city to move forward. The actual rezone of the property won't take place, several members said, until the state land sells and the details of the project are ironed out.

The sales tax incentive was a major talking point throughout the night. One side of the debate was that incentives attract the big stores and others will follow - bringing in more tax money for essential city services. The other side is that, as the mayor has stated, the location of this proposed development is the last prime spot for commercial development in northern Arizona, and an incentive isn't necessary to attract big business.

While RAID took up several seats at the meeting, local Realtors took up a larger portion. When the president of the Kingman/Golden Valley Association of Realtors, Rita Zumwalt, approached the lectern, dozens of Realtors stood in support as she spoke. “We stand here today to support the city's decision for the land use change at the city's acreage along I-40,” she said.

“By recognizing the new land use” from open space to commercial, “it would be the best fit for the area,” Zumwalt said.

“We need to capitalize on the highest and best use of the city's property to make sure that we are prepared to meet the obligations of the future residents who will use these transits,” she said, because, for one example, Eastern Avenue was not developed to handle current and future traffic volumes.

Added traffic from the neighborhoods near the proposed developments will be from residents of the Hualapai Mountain Road area. They will use it to get back and fourth via interchanges to get home, she said. This point has been made by the mayor several times, that shopping in the area won't increase traffic in the nearby residential neighborhoods around I-40 because people will be using the freeway to access the new, proposed developments.

“In closing, I just wanted to say that the Realtors are for growth. We are not against the RAID group, and in fact, we have common concerns.”

Expanding on the “pandering” mentioned by Bihuniak, local business and landowner Scott Dunton said that the city looks to be favoring big, out-of-town developers over local ones.

“The litmus test for anything that happens in Kingman should be, how does it affect our children and grandchildren? The people that are doing it, what do they care about our children and our grandchildren?” he asked.